The NHL: A State of the Union Address

Twenty seconds...stop. Fifteen seconds...stop. Twenty-eight seconds...stop. How can you even call this a sport anymore? No, I'm not talking about baseball; I am talking about the crap that passes for "professional" hockey these days.

For the past 10 years, I have watched the de-evolution of the NHL from an amazingly fast-paced, end to end, emotional rollercoaster, to a game of clutching, grabbing, holding, hooking and interference.

What I would really like to do is find "The Terminator" version of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and send him back to 1995 to terminate the New Jersey Devils before they perfect the neutral zone trap, which killed all offense to come in the future of the NHL.

I am so sick of watching this back and forth neural zone game. Is it really entertaining for some people? It's like watching an open skate at the Pepsi Center. There is so little action in the NHL aside from the typical fight. It's no wonder that small market teams are teetering on the edge of financial ruin.

Up until 2002, I thought real hockey was dead. When I say real hockey, I mean skating and scoring, not just hitting and fighting. Then I saw a tournament called the Olympics. It reminded me that sticks are for handling the puck, not throwing your opponent off by hooking his arm, and when games ended 7-6 or 5-4, not 1-0 in overtime. But now, just getting to overtime will get you a point in the standings, so what does it matter.

Isn't it sad that the NHL has to start giving points to teams who can't score? As Jackie Childs would say, "That's ludicrous, outrageous, preposterous."

Not everything can be perfect, and with some major changes, hockey could be an enthralling game to watch again.

Nowadays, despite hockey being a second-rate, boring game, the players feel they are in a position to strike. Are you guys really serious? What is the National Hockey League Players Association thinking?

I have been a hockey loyalist for the better part of my life, but I can honestly say I would not miss the NHL if they took next year off.

A strike could be the best thing that has happened to the NHL in a while. With teams like the Sabres and the Senators dwindling on the verge of bankruptcy in 2002, a strike would push some of the NHL's plethora of teams over the edge.

As much as I would hate seeing my beloved number one team, the Sabres, go the way of the dodo, this is really what the NHL needs. Fewer teams mean fewer players. The concentration of skill would increase, and the players who don't belong in the league, but are there anyway, would be forced out.

The NHL needs to drop about 10 teams, and the strike may get them there. It would, however, kill a lot of the fan base, cause large immediate losses to the NHL teams that survive the strike and make a lot of fans and players very upset.

While teams are folding left and right, I think the strike would be resolved quickly. Players would most likely agree to a salary cap just to make sure there are still teams to play on after the strike.

So if the players decide to strike, what can I say?

See you in three years.

Hopefully when you get back, all the hacks in the league will be gone and I can once again enjoy the game I grew up with, not the game I now have to tolerate.